Disproving the need for the state apparatus

[Dr.J20]

a) Doc Kynes: ^^^^ hysterical
b) got curious about this molyneux character and the fucker is apparently a step away from being a cult leader. encourages teenagers to "defoo" depart the family of origin, only to bring them into his fold, that he charges "voluntary" dues to be a part of. probably not the best person to emulate philosophically or otherwise.

 

[Dr.J20]

And he scoffs at Kant, Hegel and Hume in his "tractatus" (mundanely titled "universally preferable behavior"), though he hasn't studied any of them. He has also been reported, in an interview, to claim only Aristotle could condescend him on grounds of philosophical superiority--i.e. he is the greatest philosopher since Aristotle...
talk about ego...

 

[OGEvilgenius]

A couple of points:

1) These answers presume that actors make rational economic decisions. Empirical evidence suggests they people often do the opposite. Any argument presupposing that people will make the best economic decisions is fatally flawed. See Marxism. If actors don't make rational decisions, the theorized systems will not be as efficient or effective as claimed.

2) This statement is downright repugnant: "A rape cost the rapist such-and-such amount, a murder five times as much, and so on. This sort of arrangement is generally preferred by victims, who currently not only suffer from physical violation – but must also pay taxes to incarcerate the criminal. A woman who is raped would usually rather receive a quarter of a million dollars than pay a thousand dollars annually to cage her rapist, which adds insult to injury." Bullshit, obviously written by a man who hasn't known many rape victims. Regardless, most rapists could presumably never repay the debt, meaning there isn't any meaningful consequence for committing the crime. Actually, now that I read the rest of the answer, it doesn't provide any solution at all to violent crime. It just rants that if the state punishes criminals some criminals could rise to power in the state.

I just skimmed another answer on violent crime and it basically says the state causes violent crime, that it will cease to exist if the state ceases to exist. Bullshit. Some people are always going to have a difficult time surviving in a society regardless of how prosperous it is. I'd like to see a real answer about how to deal with the problem instead of these magical "solutions" that are just anti-state rants.

The solution is to protect yourself, and/or hire others to assist.

The state isn't required to protect you currently. So better give them a monopoly on force, right?

 

[OGEvilgenius]

That's a cop out, not an answer.

You want perfection. It will never happen.

 

[ChesusRice]

The solution is to protect yourself, and/or hire others to assist.

The state isn't required to protect you currently. So better give them a monopoly on force, right?

Definatly hire someone to protect you. This is something anyone with a Mcdonalds budget can do.

 

[schuylaar]

Definatly hire someone to protect you. This is something anyone with a Mcdonalds budget can do.

what to do, what to do..it must be a chore every week figuring out how to spend the $290 bank.

 

[tokeprep]

The solution is to protect yourself, and/or hire others to assist.

The state isn't required to protect you currently. So better give them a monopoly on force, right?

Obviously the state doesn't have a monopoly on force, since people lawfully defend themselves on the time. That idea is farcical to begin with--more bullshit magical philosophy talking points.

You can protect yourself to some degree without a state, absolutely. That's no what we're walking about. I was promised that the need for the state apparatus could be disproven. Several people have raised the issue of violent crime and we've been handed "answers" that are actually not answers. No one is ever going to want to live in this magical society without these answers, trust me, because women aren't going to be content with their judgment proof rapists roaming the streets with the punishment of being denied contracts.

 

[tokeprep]

You want perfection. It will never happen.

If you're going to tell me that this way is so much better than any other way and can resolve almost all of society's ills without a state, you need to prove it. If you can't prove it, the claim that it's so much better and so much more capable of solving problems necessarily fails. Then it's just another deeply flawed system, which leaves me puzzled about the heartfelt embrace.

I assure you rapists and murderers roaming the street freely and ever-escalating private wars would be very bad for the prosperity this magical philosophy is supposed to create.

 

[OGEvilgenius]

Obviously the state doesn't have a monopoly on force, since people lawfully defend themselves on the time. That idea is farcical to begin with--more bullshit magical philosophy talking points.

You can protect yourself to some degree without a state, absolutely. That's no what we're walking about. I was promised that the need for the state apparatus could be disproven. Several people have raised the issue of violent crime and we've been handed "answers" that are actually not answers. No one is ever going to want to live in this magical society without these answers, trust me, because women aren't going to be content with their judgment proof rapists roaming the streets with the punishment of being denied contracts.

Rapists would have the threat of death looming over them.

Many countries and some states do not allow the use of force.

 

[OGEvilgenius]

If you're going to tell me that this way is so much better than any other way and can resolve almost all of society's ills without a state, you need to prove it. If you can't prove it, the claim that it's so much better and so much more capable of solving problems necessarily fails. Then it's just another deeply flawed system, which leaves me puzzled about the heartfelt embrace.

I assure you rapists and murderers roaming the street freely and ever-escalating private wars would be very bad for the prosperity this magical philosophy is supposed to create.

Governments killed so many more people than individuals did over the last century I'm surprised you think you have a point.

 

[NLXSK1]

Rapists would have the threat of death looming over them.

Many countries and some states do not allow the use of force.

The threat of death from who? Careful... you are about to define a state entity....

 

[NLXSK1]

Governments killed so many more people than individuals did over the last century I'm surprised you think you have a point.

So, the counter to several of us respectfully asking how the defense of ourselves and our families would get with this new system and the answer is that under the current system governments have killed lots of people?

Does that even qualify as an answer?

Neither you nor Rob Roy have even come close to describing a system that provides protection to its members.

Without that you cannot have a society...

 

[OGEvilgenius]

The threat of death from who? Careful... you are about to define a state entity....

From whoever they are attacking or their immediate family members.

 

[OGEvilgenius]

So, the counter to several of us respectfully asking how the defense of ourselves and our families would get with this new system and the answer is that under the current system governments have killed lots of people?

Does that even qualify as an answer?

Neither you nor Rob Roy have even come close to describing a system that provides protection to its members.

Without that you cannot have a society...

You say government is superior and that they should be arbitrators of force. Clearly government ends up doing horrible things when given these powers. Hence why it's a good idea not to centralize power, because one bad person ends up having a lot more say in such a system.

The protection comes from yourself or your family and friends and possibly whoever you pay. Will this result in a violence free perfect society? Nope. Will this result in a less violent society than we have today? This is highly likely given the history of governments and mass slaughter.

 

[NLXSK1]

You say government is superior and that they should be arbitrators of force. Clearly government ends up doing horrible things when given these powers. Hence why it's a good idea not to centralize power, because one bad person ends up having a lot more say in such a system.

The protection comes from yourself or your family and friends and possibly whoever you pay. Will this result in a violence free perfect society? Nope. Will this result in a less violent society than we have today? This is highly likely given the history of governments and mass slaughter.

Pay with what?

Pay who?

What laws allow me to pay people with currency I dont have to protect me?

Why dont the people I pay to protect me just take my money and my posessions because obviously I am too weak to defend myself...

Suddenly you have created currency, contract law, and other constructs of a society supposedly without having a society. LOL!!! Calling it something different does not change the reality of the structure.

You have a much less well formed concept of your society than Rob Roy but they both fall apart because the individual has no protection.

People do not come to the United States and take our shit because we pay millions of people called the US Army, US Navy, US Marines and US Air Force to protect us. Your idea is not unique nor does it stand apart from the protections the society already provides.

 

[tokeprep]

Rapists would have the threat of death looming over them.

Many countries and some states do not allow the use of force.

No, the answers actually suggested they wouldn't. The answers suggested there would only be economic consequences and nothing else.

 

[tokeprep]

Governments killed so many more people than individuals did over the last century I'm surprised you think you have a point.

Governments are incapable of killing, so right back at you.

 

[tokeprep]

You say government is superior and that they should be arbitrators of force. Clearly government ends up doing horrible things when given these powers. Hence why it's a good idea not to centralize power, because one bad person ends up having a lot more say in such a system.

The protection comes from yourself or your family and friends and possibly whoever you pay. Will this result in a violence free perfect society? Nope. Will this result in a less violent society than we have today? This is highly likely given the history of governments and mass slaughter.

People kill. When people control governments they kill or direct killing. People killing is totally unavoidable. If you want to weigh a stateless society against a state society, you must account for how people will behave in the absence of the state. Nothing in this thread does that. Instead it is presumed that all people will make what are supposedly rational economic decisions, which is supposed to prevent killing. And that is bullshit.

 

[cannabineer]

The answer seems to be that the armed band should prefer non-violent means because no one will be willing to deal with them otherwise. I doubt the armed bands are going to care about that. They can steal food, weapons, cars, planes, and any other property they need. Obviously the people who would engage in this kind of activity would reason that they have far more to gain from it than legitimate enterprise, which places some limitation on their power/prosperity.

You need only pay your protection agency contract! The problem with for-profit protection agencies would be the fact that their goal is not protection at all but profit. Their incentive is to offer the least service they can possibly get people to pay for. Top notch protection service sure would be expensive, presumably so expensive that a lot of people couldn't afford it, enabling the armed bands to selectively pick them off. With those groups continually gaining strength in their quest for prosperity and power, it seems to me there would be an ever-escalating war.

Perhaps the response will be "That's not happening today, with state-controlled protection agencies, so why would it happen in the absence of the state?" Presumably people in one city or state or region would have no reason to care about what's happening in any other place, since they have no economic incentive to care, which drastically reduces the threat of counter force in a stateless society. In the present, marauding bands could easily overpower the protective forces in some cities, but if it actually happened the state or federal government--without any profits to worry about--would just call up their vast resources from elsewhere to eliminate the problem. The threat of such significant power promises certain defeat in the present; it would be a hopeless endeavor, and that's why no one dares to try.

It was ever-escalating war that led to social systems like the Greek poleis and the feudal systems worldwide. A resource that becomes very important as a war society matures is the willing subscription to the idea of joining the local potentate's army in order to protect homeland and culture. Most systems of government evolved to find the best compromise between defensibility and long-term prosperity. Only the latter will grow enough healthy and motivated participants in the defense force to hold off reasonably extrapolable future threats by either enemy armies or bandits.

Such a system has its instabilities. The expansionist intervals under e.g. Alexander and Genghis were the showy exceptions, and they didn't outlast their architects.

 

[OGEvilgenius]

The threat of death from who? Careful... you are about to define a state entity....

From anyone who doesn't like them. You can't actually be this dense can you? Of course I'd describe myself as more of a minarchist than an anarchist, but the government shouldn't be the ones doing the policing. Society should be doing it.